CONSTI ARTICLE 6 Section 21

Question 1

Section 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in, or affected by, such inquiries shall be respected.

Answer 1

Section 21 has made explicit the limitations on the power of
legislative investigation:
(1) it must be “in aid of legislation”;
(2) itmust be “in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure;” and
(3) “The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.”

the Court already recognized that the power of inquiry is inherent in the power to legislate.

Question 2

The Congress’ power of inquiry is expressly recognized in Section 21 of Article VI of the Constitution. Although there is no provision in the Constitution expressly investing either House of Congress with power to make investigations and exact testimony to the end that it may exercise its legislative functions advisedly and effectively, why?

Answer 2

such power is so far incidental to the legislative function as to be implied. In other words, the power of inquiry – with process to enforce it – is an essential and appropriate auxiliary (providing supplementary or additional help and support.) to the legislative function. A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information – which is not infrequently true – recourse must be had to others who do possess it.

Question 3

Differences of section 21 ( in aid of legislation) v section 22 ( question hour)

Answer 3

Section 22 on the other hand provides for the Question Hour. The Question Hour is closely related with the legislative power, and it is precisely as a complement to or a supplement of the Legislative Inquiry. The appearance of the members of Cabinet would be very, very essential not only in the application of check and balance but also, in effect, in aid of legislation. Section 22 refers only to Question Hour, whereas, Section 21 would refer specifically to inquiries in aid of legislation, under which anybody for that matter, may be summoned and if he refuses, he can be held in contempt of the House.

A distinction was thus made between inquiries in aid of legislation and the question hour. While attendance was meant to be discretionary in the question hour, it was compulsory in inquiries in aid of legislation. Sections 21 and 22, therefore, while closely related and complementary to each other, should not be considered as pertaining to the same power of Congress. One specifically relates to the power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation, the aim of which is to elicit information that may be used for legislation, while the other pertains to the power to conduct a question hour, the objective of which is to obtain information in pursuit of Congress’ oversight function. Ultimately, the power of Congress to compel the appearance of executive officials under Section 21 and the lack of it under Section 22 find their basis in the principle of separation of powers.

While the executive branch is a co-equal branch of the legislature, it cannot frustrate the power of Congress to legislate by refusing to comply with its demands for information. When Congress exercises its power of inquiry, the only way for department heads to exempt themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of privilege. They are not exempt by the mere fact that they are department heads. Only one executive official may be exempted from this power – the President on whom executive power is vested, hence, beyond the reach of Congress except through the power of impeachment. It is based on her being the highest official of the executive branch, and the due respect accorded to a co-equal branch of government which is sanctioned by a long-standing custom. The requirement then to secure presidential consent under Section 21, limited as it is only to appearances in the question hour, is valid on its face. For under Section 22, Article VI of the Constitution, the appearance of department heads in the question hour is discretionary on their part. Section 21 cannot, however, be applied to appearances of department heads in inquiries in aid of legislation. Congress is not bound in such instances to respect the refusal of the department head to appear in such inquiry, unless a valid claim of privilege is subsequently made, either by the President herself or by the Executive Secretary.

When Congress merely seeks to be informed on how department heads are implementing the statutes which it has issued, its right to such information is not as imperative as that of the President to whom, as Chief Executive, such department heads must give a report of their performance as a matter of duty. In such instances, Section 22, in keeping with the separation of powers, states that Congress may only request their appearance. Nonetheless, when the inquiry in which Congress requires their appearance is ‘in aid of legislation’ under Section 21, the appearance is mandatory for the same reasons stated in Arnault.

Question 4

Question hour vs. Legislative investigation

Answer 4

QUESTION HOUR - (As to persons who may appear)Only a Department Head, (as to who conducts the investigation) Entire body, (as to subject matter) Matters related to the department head only,( as to attendance) discretionary
Legislative investigation - Any person, Committees/ Entire body, Any matter for the purpose of legislation, compulsory

Question 5

Bengzon, Jr. v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee

Answer 5

In spite of the broad scope of investigation “in aid of legislation,”
however, the Court found in Bengzon, Jr. v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
that the committee had gone beyond what was allowable. The
case started with a speech by Senator Enrile suggesting the need to
determine the existence of violation of law in the alleged transfer of
some properties of “Kokoy” Romualdez to the Lopa Group of Companies.
On this basis, the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee decided, purportedly
in aid of legislation, to investigate the transaction. Meanwhile,
too, the petitioners in this case had been charged criminally before the
Sandiganbayan in connection with the same transaction. When the Blue

Ribbon Committee summoned the petitioners to appear, they asked the
Court for a restraining order on the ground among others that the investigation
was not in aid of legislation and that their appearance before
the investigating body could prejudice their case before the Sandiganbayan,
thus violating due process, because it could result in the weakening
of their case.
The Court ruled that the investigation was not in aid of legislation
because “the speech of Senator Enrile contained no suggestion of
contemplated legislation” but merely pointed to the need to determine
whether “the relatives of President Aquino, particularly Mr. Ricardo
Lopa, had violated the law.”2 66

Question 6

PDAF

Answer 6

PDAF article cannot be properly deemed as a legal appropriation under the said constitutional provision precisely because it contains post-enactment measures which effectively create a system of intermediate appropriations.

These intermediate appropriations are the actual appropriations meant for enforcement and since they are made by individual legislators after the GAA is passed they occur outside the law.

Violation of non-delegability principle

Question 7

In addition to these limitations, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that other prerogatives, principles and rights may validly be invoked againts this power of Congress. This would include:

Answer 7

• President’s executive privilege
• the Fiscal autonomy and constitutinal independence of judiciary
• sub judice rule
• right againts self incrimination

Question 8

How long may a private individual be imprisoned by the legislature for contempt?

Answer 8

The Supreme Court has since ruled that the period of the imprisonment under the inherent power of contempt by the Senate during inquiries in aid of legislation should only last until the termination of the legislative inquiry under the said power is invoked

This occurs upon the approval or disapproval of the committee report or the expiration of one Congress
The exercise of the inherent power of contempt ceases and there is no more genuine necessity to penalize the detained witness

Question 9

occ

In distinguishing between the power of Congress to conduct legislative inquiries under section 21 and its prerogatives under section 22 which entitles it to merely request the appearance of the executive

Answer 9

Sections 21 and 22, therefore, while closely related and complementary to each other, should not be considered as pertaining to the same power of congress. One specifically relates to the power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation, the aim of which is to elicit information that may be used for legislation, while the other pertains to the power to conduct a question hour, the objective of which is to obtain information in pursuit of Congress’s oversight funtion.

Question 10

Section 22. The heads of departments may, upon their own initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon the request of either House, as the rules of each House shall provide, appear before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives at least three days before their scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the security of the State or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive session. Can you explain it to us?

Answer 10

This provision wil enable the congress to obtain information form the department secretaries on the manner they are implementing the laws it has enacted and also on matters related to pending or prospective legislation

Question 11

The legislative inquiry of the Senate terminates
on two instances:

Answer 11

First, upon the approval or disapproval of the
Committee Report. Evidently, the Committee Report
is the culmination of the legislative inquiry. Its
approval or disapproval signifies the end of such
legislative inquiry, and it is now up to the Senate
whether or not to act upon the said Committee
Report in the succeeding order of business. At that
point, the power of contempt simultaneously
ceases, and the detained witness should be released.
As the legislative inquiry ends, the basis for the
detention of the recalcitrant witness likewise ends.

Second, the legislative inquiry of the Senate also
terminates upon the expiration of one (1) Congress.
As stated in Neri (G.R. No. 180643 04 Sept. 2008), all
pending matters and proceedings, such as unpassed
bills and even legislative investigations, of the
Senate are considered terminated upon the
expiration of that Congress and it is merely optional
on the Senate of the succeeding Congress to take up
such unfinished matters, not in the same status, but
as if presented for the first time. Again, while the
Senate is a continuing institution, its proceedings
are terminated upon the expiration of that Congress
at the final adjournment of its last session. Hence, as
the legislative inquiry ends upon that expiration, the
imprisonment of the detained witnesses likewise
ends. (Balag vs. Senate, G.R. No. 234608, 03 July
2018)

Question 12

Appropriation measures may be classified into:

Answer 12

General and Special

The general appropriations law passed annually is intended to provide for the financial operations of the entire government during one fiscal period whereas a special appropriation is designed for a specific purpose, such as the creation of a fund for the relief of typhoon victims.

Question 13

Appropriation Defined

Answer 13

An appropriation measure may be defined as a statute the primary and specific purpose of which is to authorize the release of public funds from the treasury

The power of appropriation , which involves the setting apart by law of a certain sum from the public revenue for a specified purpose is conferred upon the congress

Ex. The public works and the general appropriations act.

Question 14

Appropriation involves two governing principles, namely:

Answer 14

1. Principle of the Public Fisc, asserting that all monies received from whatever source by any part of the government are public funds.
2. Principle of appropriations control - prhohibiting expenditure of any public money without legislative authorization

Question 15

Valid appropriation ex

Answer 15

• Devoted to a public purpose
• is that the sum authorized to be released must be determinate or at least determinable

Question 17

PDAF

Answer 17

Because it constains post-enactment measures
They are made by individual legislators after the GAA is passed. They occur outside the law

Question 18

Appropriation bill supposed to be intiated by the House of Representatives because

Answer 18

it is more numerous in membership and therefore also more representative of the people. Moreover, its members are presumed to be more familiar with the needs of the country in regard to the enactment of the legislative

Question 19

Rider

Answer 19

A provision in a bill which does not relate to a
particular appropriation stated in the bill. Since it is
an invalid provision under Sec. 25(2), Art. VI of the
1987 Constitution, the President may veto it as an
item.

Question 20

Senate vs. Ermita

Answer 20

The present consolidated petitions for certiorari and prohibition proffer that the President has abused such power by issuing Executive Order No. 464 (E.O. 464) last September 28, 2005. They thus pray for its declaration as null and void for being unconstitutional.

On September 21 to 23, 2005, the Committee of the Senate as a whole issued invitations to various officials of the Executive Department for them to appear on September 29, 2005 as resource speakers in a public hearing on the railway project of the North Luzon Railways Corporation with the China National Machinery and Equipment Group (hereinafter North Rail Project). The public hearing was sparked by a privilege speech of Senator Juan Ponce Enrile urging the Senate to investigate the alleged overpricing and other unlawful provisions of the contract covering the North Rail Project.

On September 28, 2005, Senate President Franklin M. Drilon received from Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita a letter[4] dated September 27, 2005 “respectfully request[ing] for the postponement of the hearing [regarding the NorthRail project] to which various officials of the Executive Department have been invited” in order to “afford said officials ample time and opportunity to study and prepare for the various issues so that they may better enlighten the Senate Committee on its investigation.”

Senate President Drilon, however, wrote[5] Executive Secretary Ermita that the Senators “are unable to accede to [his request]” as it “was sent belatedly” and “[a]ll preparations and arrangements as well as notices to all resource persons were completed [the previous] week.”

Senate President Drilon likewise received on September 28, 2005 a letter[6] from the President of the North Luzon Railways Corporation Jose L. Cortes, Jr. requesting that the hearing on the NorthRail project be postponed or cancelled until a copy of the report of the UP Law Center on the contract agreements relative to the project had been secured.

On September 28, 2005, the President issued E.O. 464, “Ensuring Observance of the Principle of Separation of Powers, Adherence to the Rule on Executive Privilege and Respect for the Rights of Public Officials Appearing in Legislative Inquiries in Aid of Legislation Under the Constitution, and For Other Purposes,”[7] which, pursuant to Section 6 thereof, took effect immediately. The salient provisions of the Order are as follows:
SECTION 1. Appearance by Heads of Departments Before Congress. - In accordance with Article VI, Section 22 of the Constitution and to implement the Constitutional provisions on the separation of powers between co-equal branches of the government, all heads of departments of the Executive Branch of the government shall secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before either House of Congress.

Constitutionality of E.O. 464

E.O. 464, to the extent that it bars the appearance of executive officials before Congress, deprives Congress of the information in the possession of these officials. To resolve the question of whether such withholding of information violates the Constitution, consideration of the general power of Congress to obtain information, otherwise known as the power of inquiry, is in order.

From the above discussion on the meaning and scope of executive privilege, both in the United States and in this jurisdiction, a clear principle emerges. Executive privilege, whether asserted against Congress, the courts, or the public, is recognized only in relation to certain types of information of a sensitive character. While executive privilege is a constitutional concept, a claim thereof may be valid or not depending on the ground invoked to justify it and the context in which it is made. Noticeably absent is any recognition that executive officials are exempt from the duty to disclose information by the mere fact of being executive officials. Indeed, the extraordinary character of the exemptions indicates that the presumption inclines heavily against executive secrecy and in favor of disclosure.

WHEREFORE, the petitions are PARTLY GRANTED. Sections 2(b) and 3 of Executive Order No. 464 (series of 2005), “ENSURING OBSERVANCE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS, ADHERENCE TO THE RULE ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND RESPECT FOR THE RIGHTS OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS APPEARING IN LEGISLATIVE INQUIRIES IN AID OF LEGISLATION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,” ARE DECLARED VOID. SECTIONS 1 AND 2(A) ARE, HOWEVER, VALID.

SECTION 1. Appearance by Heads of Departments Before Congress. - In accordance with Article VI, Section 22 of the Constitution and to implement the Constitutional provisions on the separation of powers between co-equal branches of the government, all heads of departments of the Executive Branch of the government shall secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before either House of Congress.

When the security of the State or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall only be conducted in executive session.

SECTION. 2. Nature, Scope and Coverage of Executive Privilege. -

(a) Nature and Scope. - The rule of confidentiality based on executive privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution (Almonte vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367, 23 May 1995). Further, Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides that Public Officials and Employees shall not use or divulge confidential or classified information officially known to them by reason of their office and not made available to the public to prejudice the public interest.

Executive privilege covers all confidential or classified information between the President and the public officers covered by this executive order, including:
Conversations and correspondence between the President and the public official covered by this executive order (Almonte vs. Vasquez G.R. No. 95367, 23 May 1995; Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, G.R. No. 133250, 9 July 2002);
Military, diplomatic and other national security matters which in the interest of national security should not be divulged (Almonte vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367, 23 May 1995; Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, G.R. No. 130716, 9 December 1998).
Information between inter-government agencies prior to the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements (Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, G.R. No. 130716, 9 December 1998);
Discussion in close-door Cabinet meetings (Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, G.R. No. 130716, 9 December 1998);
Matters affecting national security and public order (Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, G.R. No. 133250, 9 July 2002).

(b) Who are covered. - The following are covered by this executive order:
Senior officials of executive departments who in the judgment of the department heads are covered by the executive privilege;
Generals and flag officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and such other officers who in the judgment of the Chief of Staff are covered by the executive privilege;
Philippine National Police (PNP) officers with rank of chief superintendent or higher and such other officers who in the judgment of the Chief of the PNP are covered by the executive privilege;
Senior national security officials who in the judgment of the National Security Adviser are covered by the executive privilege; and
Such other officers as may be determined by the President.

SECTION 3. Appearance of Other Public Officials Before Congress. - All public officials enumerated in Section 2 (b) hereof shall secure prior consent of the President prior to appearing before either House of Congress to ensure the observance of the principle of separation of powers, adherence to the rule on executive privilege and respect for the rights of public officials appearing in inquiries in aid of legislation. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Also on September 28, 2005, Senate President Drilon received from Executive Secretary Ermita a copy of E.O. 464, and another letter[8] informing him “that officials of the Executive Department invited to appear at the meeting [regarding the NorthRail project] will not be able to attend the same without the consent of the President, pursuant to [E.O. 464]” and that “said officials have not secured the required consent from the President.” On even date which was also the scheduled date of the hearing on the alleged wiretapping, Gen. Senga sent a letter[9] to Senator Biazon, Chairperson of the Committee on National Defense and Security, informing him “that per instruction of [President Arroyo], thru the Secretary of National Defense, no officer of the [AFP] is authorized to appear before any Senate or Congressional hearings without seeking a written approval from the President” and “that no approval has been granted by the President to any AFP officer to appear before the public hearing of the Senate Committee on National Defense and Security scheduled [on] 28 September 2005.”

Question 21

A distinction was thus made between inquiries in aid of legislation and the question hour.

Answer 21

While attendance was meant to be discretionary in the question hour, it was compulsory in inquiries in aid of legislation.